Let's assume there is no water anywhere on earth. No streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, seas and oceans.

Let's assume rain does not fall and we never experience evaporation and Condensation and plants do not need water to thrive but humans do.

Now let's apply critical thinking.

How would the whole world be able to survive without water? Are we or science capable of manufacturing water on a large scale, the kind that would sustain the entire world?

If water was not already available and by pure "coincidence" as science often alludes is able to always be available even though the process of water creation is extremely complex and volatile yet nature somehow was able to achieve this feat unaided (according to science).

How would man be able to manufacture (create) water for the entire world?

Hint: before you make your comment please read up on water creation first.

butterflylion:Let's assume there is no water anywhere on earth. No streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, seas and oceans.

All right nice assumption

Let's assume rain does not fall and we never experience evaporation and Condensation and plants do not need water to thrive but humans do.

This is a contradiction sir, if there was no water on earth as you proposed above it means any organism on earth humans included would be ignorant of the existent of water [ the first problem should be how life could be without water thought i think this is not impossible]

for you to suggest an earth completely dry and humans on earth needing water is a contradiction of thought, if humans evolved on a world without water [as the post implies] then just like the plants they would have no need for water, we wouldn't even know there is such a thing as water and our biological calibration would be totally different from what we have today.

so this begs the question sir; How can humans in this your dry earth that evolved in a world without water then need water?

Now let's apply critical thinking.

we already are

How would the whole world be able to survive without water? Are we or science capable of manufacturing water on a large scale, the kind that would sustain the entire world?

I am quite chauvinistic about life been dependent on water because that is the only type of life i know but per say going by this your assumption [earth without water yet have organism] this question becomes null and void since it should appeal to reason and logic that such beings that somehow evolved and thrived in such a world would not need water or know of water in the first place.

So manufacturing water becomes unnecessary

If water was not already available and by pure "coincidence" as science often alludes is able to always be available even though the process of water creation is extremely complex and volatile yet nature somehow was able to achieve this feat unaided (according to science).

Water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, hydrogen and oxygen is one of the most common elements scattered in the whole cosmos so my good sir by the law of mathematical probability H2O should be one of the commonest compound in the cosmos since it's making elements are quite common and actually it is common in the universe.

How would man be able to manufacture (create) water for the entire world?

man needn't create water if he didn't know of water in the first place

Hint: before you make your comment please read up on water creation first.

There are processes far more complex than water creation, the universe is awash in unending causalities, distinct values in constant reactions i wonder how effects becomes a surprise my good sir

May the critical thinkers now show themselves

I do believe the question needs to be reviewed, it doesn't live up to the hype of critical thinking

Ranchhoddas:You talk now. Are you excluding yourself from the "critical thinkers"?

@OPWe will not exist if there's no water anywhere.We are 70% water.Water is existence.

It's quite a simple question, if we evolved in a planet without water [assuming that is possible as the OP suggests], there would be absolutely no need for water in the first place so manufacturing it becomes unnecessary, we would be ignorant of the existence of water and our biological compositions, process, formations and systems would be totally different from what it is now

This is a contradiction sir, if there was no water on earth as you proposed above it means any organism on earth humans included would be ignorant of the existent of water [ the first problem should be how life could be without water thought i think this is not impossible]

for you to suggest an earth completely dry and humans on earth needing water is a contradiction of thought, if humans evolved on a world without water [as the post implies] then just like the plants they would have no need for water, we wouldn't even know there is such a thing as water and our biological calibration would be totally different from what we have today.

so this begs the question sir; How can humans in this your dry earth that evolved in a world without water then need water?

we already are

I am quite chauvinistic about life been dependent on water because that is the only type of life i know but per say going by this your assumption [earth without water yet have organism] this question becomes null and void since it should appeal to reason and logic that such beings that somehow evolved and thrived in such a world would not need water or know of water in the first place.

So manufacturing water becomes unnecessary

Water is a mixture of hydrogen and oxygen, hydrogen and oxygen is one of the most common elements scattered in the whole cosmos so my good sir by the law of mathematical probability H2O should be one of the commonest compound in the cosmos since it's making elements are quite common and actually it is common in the universe.

man needn't create water if he didn't know of water in the first place

There are processes far more complex than water creation, the universe is awash in unending causalities, distinct values in constant reactions i wonder how effects becomes a surprise my good sir

I do believe the question needs to be reviewed, it doesn't live up to the hype of critical thinking

Allow me sir.

My question is valid! Let's say ONLY man has a need for water and putting what we know about evolution aside and man is the only being or thing in nature who holds this need, organisms do not, plants do not but man alone!

How would we have been able to create water for our own survival based on world population?

Also, the process of water creation is very complex and not as simple as you seem to think. This was why I asked that anyone who wishes to contribute needs to first read up on water creation. Water is not simply oxygen and hydrogen (look it up) .

Again my question is based on an earth where we humans are the ones who have this need and also based on the assumption that we did not evolve from water sources yet need it.

My question is valid! Let's say ONLY man has a need for water and putting what we know about evolution aside and man is the only being or thing in nature who holds this need, organisms do not, plants do not but man alone!

How can man have a need for water when he is in a planet without water?

LOL the question formed from the basis of that assumption is a paradox therefore totally invalidates itself.. If there is water on earth and man grew in such a world he would need water and every organism would also require water, if man and other organism on earth grew up in an earth without any water at all, none would require or need water.

You cannot need what you do not even know off in the first place.

How would we have been able to create water for our own survival based on world population?

refer to above

Also, the process of water creation is very complex and not as simple as you seem to think. This was why I asked that anyone who wishes to contribute needs to first read up on water creation. Water is not simply oxygen and hydrogen (look it up) .

Again my question is based on an earth where we humans are the ones who have this need and also based on the assumption that we did not evolve from water sources yet need it.

which makes your question illogical and paradoxical. Organisms cannot need what they do not have available within their ecological system sparking their biological evolution.

If we evolved without water, we cannot need water, we cannot even know of water, what it feels like but if we need water then we must have known, felt, evolved with water therefore this paradox your own question creates of itself invalidates it.

your question is self defeating, for the very fact that you assume humans that evolved without water is same as saying humans who do not need water.

If man evolved without water it means he doesn't need water, if he needs water he cannot evolve without water

The question is quite nonsensical which is why i asked for a review.

Give it another try!

Think more before you ask a question, critical thinking is for all. Review your own question, i wonder where the critical thinking is needed in it

How can man have a need for water when he is in a planet without water?

LOL the question formed from the basis of that assumption is a paradox therefore totally invalidates itself.. If there is water on earth and man grew in such a world he would need water and every organism would also require water, if man and other organism on earth grew up in an earth without any water at all, none would require or need water.

which makes your question illogical and paradoxical. Organisms cannot need what they do not have available within their ecological system sparking their biological evolution.

If we evolved without water, we cannot need water, we cannot even know of water, what it feels like but if we need water then we must have known, felt, evolved with water therefore this paradox your own question creates of itself invalidates it.

your question is self defeating, for the very fact that you assume humans that evolved without water is same as saying humans who do not need water.

If man evolved without water it means he doesn't need water, if he needs water he cannot evolve without water

The question is quite nonsensical which is why i asked for a review.

Think more before you ask a question, critical thinking is for all. Review your own question, i wonder where the critical thinking is needed in it

You are missing a vital point I made which is why your entire submission is invalid.

I said putting aside all we know about evolution.

In other words let's assume man did not evolve based on what evolution says but still needs water to survive.

I also asked "how can man create water to sustain the entire earth" and not the small way your video depicts.

Let me repeat. I AM NOT THINKING ALONG THE LINES OF WHAT WE KNOW ABOUT EVOLUTION AND MANS ALLEGED ORIGIN.

I am coming from another angle. This is so the truly critical minds can think outside the box.

If man needed water he had to have first evolved but I am not thinking in line with evolution but discarding that idea and working with a different idea.

My question is valid! Let's say ONLY man has a need for water and putting what we know about evolution aside and man is the only being or thing in nature who holds this need, organisms do not, plants do not but man alone!

How would we have been able to create water for our own survival based on world population?

Also, the process of water creation is very complex and not as simple as you seem to think. This was why I asked that anyone who wishes to contribute needs to first read up on water creation. Water is not simply oxygen and hydrogen (look it up) .

Again my question is based on an earth where we humans are the ones who have this need and also based on the assumption that we did not evolve from water sources yet need it.

Give it another try!

It is not a valid question.But to humour you, you are asking for something that will involve a lot of scientific ingenuity. Something I'm sure no one on this forum possesses.Or have you figured out a way of creating water from nothing?

I'm not intelligent, so my impulse was to avoid this thread...that was before I read the post. Upon reading it though, it is evident that very little intelligence has been invested in the formulation of this discussion, and I can see that with my limited intelligence, so I'm just going to save intelligent people a lot of time by...well, by wasting mine.

butterflylion:Let's assume there is no water anywhere on earth. No streams, rivers, lakes, ponds, seas and oceans.

Let's assume rain does not fall and we never experience evaporation and Condensation and plants do not need water to thrive but humans do.

The average human is made up of 50 - 70% water, so if there is no water anywhere on earth, then in what form do the humans who supposedly thrive on water exist? And if they have existed thus far without water, why do they suddenly need it?

Now let's apply critical thinking.

How would the whole world be able to survive without water? Are we or science capable of manufacturing water on a large scale, the kind that would sustain the entire world?

What does your question mean? You've just said above that water does not exist and plants do not require water to survive; so in your hypothetical universe, the whole world seems to be surviving just fine without water. You're essentially creating an imaginary problem and beseeching others to figure out its solution. Such a universe is your creation, and seems to defy the known laws of physics, so the onus is on you to explain just how the world survives in this imaginary universe of yours.

If water was not already available and by pure "coincidence" as science often alludes is able to always be available even though the process of water creation is extremely complex and volatile yet nature somehow was able to achieve this feat unaided (according to science).

Really? Science makes this claim? Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that supports this assertion?

How would man be able to manufacture (create) water for the entire world?

Hint: before you make your comment please read up on water creation first.

May the critical thinkers now show themselves

I have a hypothetical of mine, which I want you to answer:

There is a flying donkey that exists in the world. This donkey eats boys with less than 10 legs. There is a boy with 9 legs. He is the prince that was promised, so he should not be eaten by this flying donkey. How should the boy grow his 10th leg so he is not eaten by the flying donkey? I expect you to use your intelligence to answer this question!

Ranchhoddas: It is not a valid question.But to humour you, you are asking for something that will involve a lot of scientific ingenuity. Something I'm sure no one on this forum possesses.Or have you figured out a way of creating water from nothing?

The question isn't for me. It's for everyone to apply some critical thought to.

AgentOfAllah:I'm not intelligent, so my impulse was to avoid this thread...that was before I read the post. Upon reading it though, it is evident that very little intelligence has been invested in the formulation of this discussion, and I can see that with my limited intelligence, so I'm just going to save intelligent people a lot of time by...well, by wasting mine.

The average human is made up of 50 - 70% water, so if there is no water anywhere on earth, then in what form do the humans who supposedly thrive on water exist? And if they have existed thus far without water, why do they suddenly need it?

What does your question mean? You've just said above that water does not exist and plants do not require water to survive; so in your hypothetical universe, the whole world seems to be surviving just fine without water. You're essentially creating an imaginary problem and beseeching others to figure out its solution. Such a universe is your creation, and seems to defy the known laws of physics, so the onus is on you to explain just how the world survives in this imaginary universe of yours.

Really? Science makes this claim? Do you have a peer-reviewed reference that supports this assertion?

I have a hypothetical of mine, which I want you to answer:

There is a flying donkey that exists in the world. This donkey eats boys with less than 10 legs. There is a boy with 9 legs. He is the prince that was promised, so he should not be eaten by this flying donkey. How should the boy grow his 10th leg so he is not eaten by the flying donkey? I expect you to use your intelligence to answer this question!

you are still behind with the updated information I provided so saying stylishly that I am not intelligent is welcome.

Put all you know about evolution aside.

Man being made up of 50% water does not mean we must need water (follow my train of thought)

Even if we do need water but we came to the scene not via evolution ( according to my angle on this thread). So how would we sustain ourselves without any water source on earth?

you are still behind with the updated information I provided so saying stylishly that I am not intelligent is welcome.

Put all you know about evolution aside.

Man being made up of 50% water does not mean we must need water (follow my train of thought)

Even if we do need water but we came to the scene not via evolution ( according to my angle on this thread). So how would we sustain ourselves without any water source on earth?

Can you please answer my hypothetical?

AgentOfAllah:There is a flying donkey that exists in the world. This donkey eats boys with less than 10 legs. There is a boy with 9 legs. He is the prince that was promised, so he should not be eaten by this flying donkey. How should the boy grow his 10th leg so he is not eaten by the flying donkey? I expect you to use your intelligence to answer this question!

It's quite a simple question, if we evolved in a planet without water [assuming that is possible as the OP suggests], there would be absolutely no need for water in the first place so manufacturing it becomes unnecessary, we would be ignorant of the existence of water and our biological compositions, process, formations and systems would be totally different from what it is now

If there is no water at all, survival would be impossible except there are chemical means to produce water or we evolve to scrap out our dependence on water. If both ways are not possible, we would die out because you are alive if the environmental conditions supports or else you die out. Butterflylion you have a reply, anything else?

Apart from replies such as mine(which speaks on and contribute to the survival of aerobic life or other lifeforms in absence of water), I don't see the purpose of your thread. Or is that the only purpose?